Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 1 of 56
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`
`To Defendants’ Notice Regarding Related Litigation
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 56
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-00319-AT
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC., and
`ROSEMOUNT INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SIPCO LLC, and
`IP CO., LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ)
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENJOIN DEFENDANTS
`FROM PROSECUTING THE SECOND-FILED ACTION
`
`Plaintiffs Emerson Electric Co., Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., and
`
`Rosemount Inc., (collectively, “Emerson”), respectfully request an Order enjoining
`
`Defendants SIPCO LLC and IP CO., LLC (collectively “SIPCO”) from
`
`prosecuting a second-filed action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
`
`of Texas. Through this motion Emerson seeks this Court’s assistance in ending
`
`SIPCO’s effort to compound and complicate this dispute by forcing two different
`
`district courts, operating in parallel, to decide the same issues. A grant of
`
`Emerson’s present motion would also effectively end SIPCO’s effort to change the
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 3 of 56
`
`venue of this dispute from SIPCO’s home court to a district where neither it nor
`
`Emerson has any substantial connection.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The dispute between the instant parties has a history. SIPCO first contacted
`
`Emerson to discuss a license in early 2007. Emerson responded to that request by
`
`asking SIPCO to identify the products it believed needed a license. Nothing
`
`further was heard from SIPCO for more than six years.
`
`On February 27, 2013, SIPCO wrote to Emerson to again invite it to
`
`consider taking a license under two families of patents. The first patent family,
`
`known as “the IP CO patents,” consists of at least five patents, each of which is
`
`entitled “Wireless Network System and Method for Providing Same.” Each of the
`
`IP CO patents identifies the same two inventors, Edwin Brownrigg and Thomas
`
`Wilson, and each derives from a common patent application, an application that
`
`matured into United States Patent No. 6,044,062 (“the ‘062 patent”). The ‘062
`
`patent is one of the two patents at issue in this case. Given this common ancestry,
`
`these five patents are considered to be part of the same “patent family.”
`
`The second patent family, known as “the SIPCO patents,” consists of at least
`
`eight patents, many of which are entitled “System and Method for Monitoring and
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 4 of 56
`
`Controlling Remote Devices.”1 Each of these patents identifies a common
`
`inventor, T. David Petite, and all eight patents claim priority to a common patent
`
`application. That application, Serial No. 60/059,643, did not mature into an issued
`
`patent, but it provides the common ancestry for all eight of the SIPCO patents
`
`including United States Patent No. 7,103,511 (“the ‘511 patent) at issue in this
`
`case. These eight patents are considered to be part of the same “patent family.”
`
`The patents in these two patent families are all directed to the same
`
`technology – wireless networks and routing of data within those networks. For
`
`example, the patents in the ‘062 patent family describe radios (“clients”) that
`
`transmit information to a central location such as a plant manager’s office
`
`(“server”) either directly or, if that radio is too far away, indirectly through one or
`
`more relay radios (other “clients”). IP CO contends that it invented a system by
`
`which the client radios themselves determine whether they will send their
`
`messages directly to the server or through one or more neighboring relay radios. If
`
`the indirect route is chosen, the client radios themselves determine which relay
`
`radios will be used to route the message to the server.
`
`1 One of the patents in this family of patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,908,842, is
`directed to the same technology but is entitled “Multi-Functional General Purpose
`Transceivers and Devices.”
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 4 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 5 of 56
`
`Emerson markets and sells several products that are claimed to infringe on
`
`these two families of patents owned by Defendants. These products are pressure
`
`gauges, thermometers, flow meters and similar process management devices, some
`
`of which are coupled to a radio that wirelessly communicates to the plant manager.
`
`These products are used by plant managers to monitor conditions such as
`
`temperature, pressure or flow at a location within the plant. Each of the Emerson
`
`products route data within a wireless network, but those products do not infringe
`
`because the routes used to transmit data to the plant manager are controlled by the
`
`plant manager’s server, not the individual client radios as required by the IP CO
`
`patents. Indeed, no client radio even knows the identity of the radio relays being
`
`used to route messages to the plant manager – each client radio knows only the
`
`identity of the radio to which it will send its message.
`
`Emerson’s products are constructed and operate differently than those
`
`claimed in the SIPCO patents, as well. For example, Emerson’s wireless products
`
`do not provide data from the wireless network to a “wide area network” (e.g., the
`
`internet). All claims of the ‘511 patent asserted in this action require that feature.
`
`These facts (and others) complicated the parties’ license discussions. SIPCO
`
`identified one claim from eight patents from the IP CO and SIPCO patent families
`
`and presented Emerson with an explanation of how Emerson’s Smart Wireless
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 5 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 6 of 56
`
`products allegedly infringed those claims. Emerson responded to those disclosures
`
`by pointing out how its products did not infringe SIPCO’s patents. The parties
`
`were unable to reach agreement after months of discussions. On July 31, 2013,
`
`Emerson filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in this District asserting,
`
`among other things, the invalidity and non-infringement of each of the eight patent
`
`claims SIPCO had identified to Emerson. A true and correct copy of the July 2013
`
`Complaint filed is attached as Exhibit (“Exh.”) A.2
`
`The parties’ license discussions continued after Emerson filed its initial
`
`complaint. Unfortunately, those discussions also failed. In an effort to streamline
`
`the dispute, Emerson dismissed the first Georgia action, without prejudice, and
`
`filed a second action on January 30, 2015, narrowing the challenged patents to just
`
`one representative patent from each of the two patent families - the ‘062 patent
`
`from the IP CO patent family, and the ‘511 patent from the SIPCO patent family.
`
`(See Doc. 1). Like the its earlier complaint, Emerson’s January 2015 Complaint
`
`was limited to the one claim of each of those two patents that SIPCO had identified
`
`2 SIPCO wrongly characterizes Emerson’s conduct as a “race to the courthouse.”
`(See Doc. 47, pp. 3, 4). The “race to the courthouse” analysis begins with a patent
`owner warning that it will file suit by a certain date and the alleged infringer racing
`to its home court to file first. Here, the parties negotiated for months and SIPCO
`never threatened suit by any date certain. Moreover, in an effort to avoid a
`protracted venue dispute, Emerson initiated this action in SIPCO’s home forum.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 6 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 7 of 56
`
`to Emerson as allegedly being infringed. Id. SIPCO answered the January 2015
`
`Complaint on July 27, 2015, limiting their responsive pleading to just the ‘062 and
`
`‘511 representative patents, but expanding the claims asserted beyond the two
`
`claims previously discussed by the parties.3 (Docs. 9, 10).
`
`For reasons known only to it, on October 16, 2015, SIPCO initiated a second
`
`action by filing an infringement complaint against Emerson in District Court for
`
`the Eastern District of Texas. (See Doc. 35-1). SIPCO’s Texas Complaint accused
`
`Emerson of infringing the other six patents that had been the subject of the parties’
`
`negotiations since February 2013 as well as several other patents. Critically, each
`
`and every patent SIPCO asserts in Texas is a member of either the IP CO patent
`
`family or the SIPCO patent family, and each and every one of the Emerson
`
`products accused of infringement in this action is also accused of infringement in
`
`the Texas action. See Section II.B, below.
`
`On December 10, 2015, Emerson moved the Texas District Court to dismiss
`
`or transfer the second-filed Texas action on the grounds that the two cases
`
`substantially overlapped and should be addressed by the same court. (See Doc. 35-
`
`2). SIPCO opposed that motion on the grounds that the two actions do not
`
`substantially overlap, that its decision to choose a forum other than its home forum
`
`3 SIPCO asserts infringement of a total of 28 patent claims from the two patents at
`issue in this action.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 7 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 8 of 56
`
`to litigate is entitled to weight, and that Texas is the more convenient forum. (See
`
`Doc. 46-1). That motion has been fully briefed and is now pending. The Texas
`
`District Court, however, has not delayed its pre-trial preparations. On January 26,
`
`2016, the Texas District Court set a scheduling hearing for February 22, 2016 at
`
`which time that court will assign dates for a Markman claim construction hearing
`
`and trial. Exh. B. That scheduling hearing, and the automatic disclosures it
`
`triggers, lends some urgency to resolution of the first-filed issue now. As
`
`developed below, this Court has the authority to enjoin SIPCO’s prosecution of the
`
`second-filed Texas action.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The First-Filed Rule
`
`It is well established that principles of comity require federal district courts
`
`to exercise care to avoid duplicative litigation. See Colorado River Water
`
`Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)). “When the
`
`declaratory action can resolve the various legal relations in dispute and afford
`
`relief from the controversy that gave rise to the proceeding, and absent a sound
`
`reason for a change of forum, a first-filed declaratory action is entitled to
`
`precedence as against a later-filed patent infringement action.” Genetech, Inc. v.
`
`Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 938 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Merial Ltd. v. Cipla
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 8 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 9 of 56
`
`Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘[t]he ‘first –to-file’ rule …generally
`
`favors pursuing only the first filed action”); Manual v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d
`
`1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 2005) (‘[w]here two actions involving overlapping issues and
`
`parties are pending in two federal courts, there is a strong presumption across the
`
`federal circuits that favors the forum of the first-filed suit under the first-filed
`
`rule.”); see also Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.,
`
`713 F.3d 71, 78 (11th Cir. 2013).
`
`Courts typically enforce the first-to-file Rule “absent sound reason for a
`
`change of forum.” Manual, 430 F.3d at 1135; Genetech, 998 F.3d at 938. The
`
`first-filed rule not only determines which court should decide the merits of the
`
`substantially similar cases but also establishes which court should decide what
`
`should be done with the second-filed action. Collegiate, 713 F.3d at 78 (affirming
`
`first-filed court’s decision to enjoin prosecution of second-filed action); see also
`
`Meeropol v. Nizer, 505 F.2d 232, 235 (2nd Cir. 1974) (first-filed court has
`
`jurisdiction to enjoin the prosecution of the second action). The first-filed rule was
`
`created “to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings which may trench upon
`
`the authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call
`
`for a uniform result” and to dissuade partier from filing retaliatory lawsuits in a
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 9 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 10 of 56
`
`different district after being sued. West Gulf Maritime Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea
`
`Local 24, 751 F.2d 721, 729-30 (5th Cir. 1985).
`
`In evaluating whether to apply the first-to-file rule to an action, a court must
`
`determine whether the two pending actions are so duplicative or involve
`
`substantially similar issues that one court should decide the subject matter of both
`
`actions. Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Micron Semiconductor, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 994,
`
`997 (E.D. Tex. 1993). The issues raised need not be identical. The key question is
`
`whether there is a likelihood that the second-filed action might substantially
`
`overlap with the first action. Sutter Corp. v. P&P Indus., Inc., 125 F.3d 914, 920
`
`(5th Cir. 1997). Thus, the focus of the inquiry is not whether there are differences
`
`between the two actions. Instead, the inquiry centers of the degree of overlap.
`
`While the Texas District Court may still grant Emerson’s pending motion to
`
`dismiss or transfer, as the first-filed court, this Court has the power to enjoin
`
`SIPCO from proceeding with the second-filed Texas action. Northwest Airlines,
`
`Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 989 F.2d 1002, 1004 (8th Cir. 1993) (“The
`
`discretionary power of the federal court in which the first-filed action is pending to
`
`enjoin the parties from proceeding with a later-filed action in another federal court
`
`is firmly established.”); see also 6 Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and
`
`Procedure, § 1418 at 145-46 (2d ed. 1990) (“Indeed, by granting an injunction in
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 10 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 11 of 56
`
`this context, the court furthers the general policy against multiplicity of
`
`litigation”); EEOC v. University of Pa., 850 969, 971 (3rd Cir. 1988), aff’d, 490
`
`U.S.. 1982 (1990) (noting that each district court has power to enjoin prosecution
`
`of subsequent, overlapping proceeding); Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip.
`
`Co., 342 U.S. 180, 185 (1952).
`
`B.
`
`SIPCO Should Be Enjoined Under the First-Filed Rule
`
`There is no question that this is the first-filed action. Whether measured
`
`from July 31, 2013, or January 30, 2015, this action is the first-filed action. This is
`
`all courts have required to apply the first-to-file rule and SIPCO has not contested
`
`the point. Rather SIPCO asserts only that this action and the Texas action do not
`
`substantially overlap.
`
`The substantial overlap between this and the Texas action, however, is not
`
`open to honest debate. Emerson and SIPCO are parties in both actions. In
`
`addition, all of the patents at issue in these two cases are related. Each and every
`
`one of the patents SIPCO asserts in Texas is either from the IP CO patent family
`
`(the family that includes the ‘062 patent at issue here) or from the SIPCO patent
`
`family (the family of patents that includes the ‘511 patent at issue here). Because
`
`the patents from each of the two patent families at issue in the two competing
`
`actions share common prosecution histories, the same prosecution files and prior
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 11 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 12 of 56
`
`art will be at issue in both cases. Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357
`
`F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Because each of the patents in the IP CO patent family are straight
`
`continuations (applications that share the same specification and filing date), the
`
`same prior art applies to every one of the patents in that patent family. All of the
`
`patents in the SIPCO patent family derive from continuation or continuation-in-
`
`part patent applications. Thus, the prior art that applies to the first-filed application
`
`in that family applies to each and every patent, but other, additional prior art may
`
`also apply based on the filing date to be accorded each patent. The common Patent
`
`Office file histories and overlapping prior art, along with any witness testimony
`
`relating to either, themselves demonstrate the substantial overlap of these two
`
`cases. Good Tech. Corp. v. MobileIron, Inc., 2015 WL 1458091 at *8 (D. Del.
`
`2015 (transferring action to district where patents from the same patent families
`
`were already at issue); see also Amberwave System Corp. v. Intel Systems Corp.,
`
`2005 WL 2861476 at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (transferred second-filed actions
`
`where the first-filed action involved a different, but closely related patent).
`
`Moreover, the patents here and those at issue in Texas are so related that
`
`many of the same claim terms are present in multiple patents. For example, a chart
`
`SIPCO presented to the Texas District Court illustrates the overlap and similarity
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 12 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 13 of 56
`
`between claim 2 of the ‘062 patent (“the IP CO patent” at issue in this action) and
`
`claim 1 of the United States Patent No. 8,233,471 (one of the “IP CO patents” at
`
`issue in Texas). Emerson modified SIPCO’s chart by color coding the common
`
`Excerpt from U.S. Patent No. 6,044,062
`(col. 23, lines 32-50)
`2. A wireless network system comprising:
`a server including a server controller and a server radio
`modem, said server controller
`implementing a server
`process that
`includes the control of said server radio
`modem, said server process including the receipt and
`transmission of data packets via said server radio modem;
`and
`a plurality of clients each including a client controller and
`a client radio modem, said client controller implementing
`a client process that includes the control of said client
`radio modem, said client process including the receipt and
`transmission of data packets via said client radio modem,
`wherein said client process of each of said clients initiates
`and selects a radio transmission path to said server that is
`one of a direct link to said server and an indirect link to
`said server through at least one the remainder of said
`plurality of clients,
`
`wherein said client process of each of said clients initiates
`and selects a radio transmission path to said server that is
`one of a direct link to said server and an indirect link to
`said server through at least one the remainder of said
`plurality of clients,
`wherein said server process further includes logic that
`maintains a client link tree having client link entries.
`
`claim elements:
`
`Excerpt from U.S. Patent No. 8,233,471
`(col. 22, lines 59-67 through col. 23, lines 1-19)
`
`1. A wireless network system comprising:
`
`a server including a server controller and a server
`radio modem, said server controller implementing a
`server process that includes the control of said server
`radio modem, said server process including the
`receipt and transmission of data packets via said
`server radio modem;
`
`a plurality of clients each including a client controller
`and a client radio modem, said client controller
`implementing a client process that includes the
`control of said client radio modem, said client process
`including the receipt and transmission of data packets
`via said client radio modem, wherein said client
`process of each of said clients initiates and selects a
`radio transmission path to said server that is one of a
`direct link to said server and an indirect link to said
`server through at least one the remainder of said
`plurality of clients; and
`
`wherein said client process of each of said clients
`initiates and selects a radio transmission path to said
`server that is one of a direct link to said server and an
`indirect link to said server through at least one the
`remainder of said plurality of clients, and
`wherein said selected transmission path to said server
`is a path utilizing the least number of other clients,
`and
`wherein the server process is configured to: receive
`the selected transmission path from each the plurality
`of clients;
`determine an optimized transmission path for each of
`the plurality of clients based on the selected
`transmission paths received from the plurality of
`clients; and
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 13 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 14 of 56
`
`send the optimized transmission path for each of the
`clients to the respective clients.
`
`The italicized claim limitation directed to the client controller “selecting a path to
`
`the server” is a key claim limitation requiring construction and it permeates the
`
`claims of the ‘062 patent family. As noted above, this claim language is critical to
`
`Emerson’s assertion of non-infringement.
`
`Claim terms that are common to different patents should be construed
`
`consistently to ensure uniformity and by the same court to promote efficiency.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see
`
`also Fin Control Systems Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001) (same). Because many claim terms are common to patents at issue within
`
`these two actions, it makes sense to have all of the disputed claim terms construed
`
`by the same court. To do otherwise is to risk the very inconsistencies the first-filed
`
`rule was designed to avoid.
`
`In briefing the first-filed issue in Texas, SIPCO urged that Court to focus on
`
`the differences in claim language, pointing out, for example, that although the
`
`language of claim 2 of the ‘062 patent overlaps the language of claim 1 of the ‘471
`
`patent, the claimed server of claim 1 of the ‘471 includes limitation not found in
`
`the claimed server of claim 2 of the ‘062 patent. But that is the wrong focus.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 14 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 15 of 56
`
`The proper focus is not whether there are some minor differences in the
`
`claim language at issue; clearly there are some minor differences. The cases
`
`emphasize that in deciding the first-filed issue, the court’s focus should be on the
`
`extent of the overlap. SIPCO’s argument implicitly concedes that the two claims
`
`overlap in every respect except that the claimed server of claim 1 of the ‘471 patent
`
`has additional limitations. That commonality establishes substantial overlap. The
`
`focus of the first-filed analysis is, as it must be, on the extent of the overlap – not
`
`the minor differences in claim language.
`
`All of the patents-in-suit, both here and in Texas, are directed to routing data
`
`within a wireless network. Any minor differences that may exist between these
`
`claims are vastly overshadowed by their similarity. The extent of that overlap is
`
`further demonstrated by how SIPCO has applied its patent claims. Specifically,
`
`each and every one of the products plaintiffs accuse of infringement in this action
`
`is also accused of infringement in the second-filed Texas action. The reverse is
`
`also true. The products accused of infringement in the Texas action are also
`
`accused of infringement in this action. See Exh. C (Toohey Decl. ¶¶ 2-4). Thus, to
`
`the extent that any evidence regarding the development, structure, function,
`
`operation, marketing or sale of the accused products is relevant, that same
`
`evidence, including any witness testimony, would be relevant in both cases. The
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 15 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 16 of 56
`
`overlap between these actions is substantial and clear. Good Tech., 2015 WL
`
`1458091 at *8 (transferring second-filed action involving patents from the same
`
`patent families as the patents at issue in an earlier-filed action where there was “a
`
`significant amount of uniformity among the accused products in both cases”).
`
`Three other facts further support this conclusion. SIPCO grouped all of the
`
`patents within the SIPCO and IP CO patent families together for licensing
`
`purposes. At no time did SIPCO propose license terms in which less than all of the
`
`patents in both families would be licensed. Beginning in 2013, SIPCO itself
`
`identified eight patents, two at issue here and six at issue in Texas, as relevant to
`
`Emerson’s products. That approach is consistent with SIPCO’s long-standing
`
`practice of combining both the patents in the SIPCO patent family and the patents
`
`in the IP CO patent family and licensing them as a group SIPCO calls “Essential
`
`Wireless Mesh™ (‘EWM’) Patent Portfolio.” See Exh. D (SIPCO Press Release
`
`announcing a new licensee under the “EWM Patent Portfolio”).
`
`SIPCO itself believes that these patents should be grouped together in two
`
`patent families. In 2008, SIPCO grouped the ‘511 patent, at issue in this case, with
`
`the ‘492 patent, at issue in Texas, and asserted them together against Amazon. See
`
`SIPCO v. AMAZON.COM, Inc., Case 2:08-CV-359 (E.D. Tex.). SIPCO’s previous
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 16 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 17 of 56
`
`assertion of these two patents in a single action undermines its present contention
`
`that the overlap between these cases is insubstantial.
`
`Finally, the decision to assert some of the patents of a particular patent
`
`family in a first action and to assert other patents from that same patent family
`
`against the same products runs afoul of the judicially created injunction against
`
`claim splitting. This is especially true where, as here, the patent family was
`
`created through repeated filings of straight continuations. In such a case, the
`
`common specification must support the claims of every patent in the family as a
`
`matter of law. These claims issued in separate patents because the patent applicant
`
`chose to obtain separate patents.
`
`The rule against claim splitting prohibits a plaintiff, like SIPCO, from
`
`prosecuting its case piecemeal and requires that all claims arising out of a single
`
`wrong be presented in one action. Ameritox, Ltd. v. Aegis Sciences Corp., 2009
`
`WL 305874 at *4 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (barring assertion of claim that should have
`
`been presented in the first-filed action) (citing Sensormatic Sec. Corp. v.
`
`Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 273 Fed. Appx. 256, 265 (4th Cir. 2008)). Here, SIPCO
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 17 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 18 of 56
`
`is accusing the same Emerson products of infringing related patents in
`
`simultaneous, overlapping proceedings before two different district courts.4
`
`Although only the ‘062 and ‘511 were placed at issued by Emerson’s
`
`January 2015 Complaint here, SIPCO was free to counterclaim as to any of the
`
`other patents in either patent family, or even to assert unrelated patents. SIPCO
`
`did not do so. Instead, SIPCO chose to file a second action in a Texas District
`
`where not one of the original parties is incorporated or maintains the principal
`
`place of business. The overlap between these two parallel proceedings is
`
`substantial and SIPCO should be enjoined from prosecuting the Texas action.
`
`Genetech, 998 F.2d at 938; Merial, 681 F.3d at 1299; Manual, 430 F.3d at 1135.
`
`C. The Addition Of New Parties Does Not Impact The Analysis
`
`On December 30, 2015, SIPCO filed an Amended Complaint in response to
`
`Emerson’s motion to dismiss or transfer the Texas action. Through that
`
`amendment, SIPCO added three BP entities and accused them of infringement in
`
`the Texas action. (See Doc. 47). SIPCO has used that amendment as a basis to
`
`urge the Texas court to not dismiss or transfer that action. Id. at 3; see also Doc.
`
`47-1 at 7. But the addition of these parties is a procedural gimmick designed to
`
`4 If the Texas action is transferred, or if SIPCO is forced to bring their
`infringement claims in one court, this Court can address the number of patents
`asserted through an appropriate case management order.
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 18 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 19 of 56
`
`manipulate venue and SIPCO’s addition of those parties does not alter the
`
`application of the first-filed analysis. Micron Tech., Inc., 518 F.3d at 903 (noting
`
`that if a patent holder could artificially broaden an infringement suit by naming
`
`additional defendants or patents to the later filed action, “the Supreme Court’s
`
`more lenient standard for the declaratory judgment plaintiff would lose its primary
`
`intended effect”).
`
`In addition, SIPCO sued the BP entities for infringement but limited the
`
`scope of those allegations to the Emerson Smart Wireless products purchased and
`
`used by BP. See Exh. C at ¶ 2-3. But SIPCO could have made the same
`
`allegations against any purchaser of Emerson’s accused products. The real parties
`
`in interest in this dispute are Emerson and SIPCO. BP is an innocent purchaser of
`
`the same products that give rise to SIPCO’s allegations against Emerson. Under
`
`circumstances such as these, courts routinely stay infringement allegations against
`
`purchasers of accused products under the well-established customer suit exception
`
`even when the customer suit was the first-filed action. See In re Nintendo of
`
`America, Inc., 756 F.3d 1363, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The requested injunction is necessary to remedy SIPCO’s improper effort to
`
`change venue and to needlessly compound the dispute by filing a second action
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 19 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 20 of 56
`
`involving the same parties, the same accused products and the same two patent
`
`families in a district with no substantial connection to the parties. The dispute as
`
`to both patent families, however, has already been joined in this, the first-filed
`
`action, which Emerson filed in SIPCO’s home court. As the result of SIPCO’s
`
`actions, two nearly identical proceedings are currently pending before two different
`
`courts with each of the attendant risks associated with parallel litigation.
`
`This 17th day of February, 2016
`
`/s/ Damon J. Whitaker
`William V. Custer
`Georgia Bar No. 202910
`bill.custer@bryancave.com
`Damon J. Whitaker
`Georgia Bar No. 752722
`damon.whitaker@bryancave.com
`BRYAN CAVE, LLP
`One Atlantic Center, Fourteenth Floor
`1201 W. Peachtree St., N.W.
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Tel: 404-572-6828
`Fax: 404-420-0828
`
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Donald L. Jackson
`djackson@dbjg.com
`James D. Berquist
`jberquist@dbjg.com
`J. Scott Davidson
`sdavidson@dbjg.com
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON &
`GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 20 of 20Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 21 of 56
`
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7700
`Facsimile: (571) 765-7200
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`Local Rule 7.1(D) Certification of Compliance
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing pleading has been prepared with Times
`New Roman font, 14 point, one of the font and point selections approved by the
`Court in L.R. 5.1B, N.D. Ga.
`
`/s/ Damon J. Whitaker______________
`Georgia Bar No. 752722
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enjoin Defendants From Prosecuting the Second-Filed
`Action with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send email
`notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
`
`/s/ Damon J. Whitaker______________
`Georgia Bar No. 752722
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 26Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 22 of 56
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`To Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enjoin Defendants
`From Prosecuting the Second-Filed Action
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-02528-AT Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 1 of 25Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 51-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 26Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 45-1 Filed 02/18/16 Page 23 of